HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/12/2003 SPECAPPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ,~- ~" ' "~'~' ,~ '~
Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman ~~~ 53095 Main Road
Gerard P. Goehringer k~~'~/~~ ~r~._ __~~--,~ ~~ _~ P.O. Box 1179
George Horning ~,~ ~ Southold, New York 11971-0959
Ruth D. Oliva ~ -,~ w ~-~- ~ ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064
~>ff~_~ ~ Telephone (631) 765-1809
Vincent
Orlando
http://sou~h~ldtown.northfork.n.etc~l~D ~
BOARD OF APPEALS ~'~r---'~'
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~).',3 o ~
MINUTES I~A¥ 3 0 2003
SPECIAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003 Soutllo~d To~vn Cler~
A Special Meeting of the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS was held at
the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, at 6:30 p.m. on
Wednesday, March 12, 2003.
Present were:
Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman
Gerard P. Goehringer, Member
Vincent Orlando, Member
Paula Quintieri, Clerk
Absent were:
George Horning, Member
Ruth D. Oliva, Member
6:30 p.m. Mrs. Tortora called the meeting to order.
AGENDA ITEM I'! SEQRA: The Board proceeded with the agenda items, as follows:
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT: None declared at this time:
pending inspections and reviews regarding new applications.
AGENDA ITEM I1: PUBLIC HEARINGS: The Chairwoman offered a motion to hold over
the following Public Hearings to be held on March 20, 2003: :
Appl. No. 5217 - LINDA S. SANFORD. 780 Private Road 17, Southold, New
York.
Appl. No. 5259 - ESTATE OF MURRAY SCHLUSSEL. 3085 Stillwater Avenue,
Cutchogue, New York.
And the following Public Hearing to be held on April 3, 2003:
Appl. No. 5245 - GARY GERNS.'1680 Briggatine Drive, Southold, New York.
This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0). (Members Oliva and Horning were absent)
AGENDA ITEM II1: DELIBERATIONS/DECISION MATTERS: The Board deliberated on
the following applications. The originals of each of the following determinations were
filed with the Town Clerk's Office, and copies are attached to this set of Minutes:
Page 2, Minutes
March 12, 2003 Special Meeting
Southold Town Board of Appeals
AGENDA ITEM II1: (continued)
Approved as applied for:
Appl. No. 5250- J. Herzog
Appl. No. 5255 - R and C. Swing
Appl. No. 5274 - Lyons Brown
Appl. No. 5269- Joseph Basani
Appl. No. 5268- Gerald Lemmon
Approved as applied for:
Appl. No. 5224 - Sprint Spectrum, LLP
Appl. No. 5239 - James and Karen Hoeg
Approval with conditions:
Appl. No. 5260- S. Papadopoulos
Appl. No. 5229 - Estate of M. Hiller
Appl. No. 5248 - Edward Werthner
Appi. No. 5192 - David Bell and Richard Buckheit
Appl. No. 5267 - Ellen Hinsch
Denied/Alternate Relief Granted:
Appl. No. 5179 -C & C Sidorowicz
AGENDA ITEM IV: OTHER/RESOLUTIONS: None at this time.
There being no other business properly coming before the Board at this time, the
Chairwoman declared the Meeting adjourned. The Meeting was adjourned at
approximately 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paula Ouinti
Enc.: Decisions (13)
Approved - ~.u,~ A. Tortora, Chairwoman
ufhold To~v. Clerl~
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Southold Town Hall
Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road
Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179
George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959
Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064
Vincent Orlando Telephone (631) 765-1809
http://southoldtown.northfork.ne.t
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MAY 3 0 2003
MEETING OF MARCH 12, 2003
Appl. No. 5267 - ELLEN HINSCH
Property Location: 6925 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; Parcel 1000-126-10-16.
SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under
consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II
category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if
the project is implemented as planned.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 52,783 sq. ft. parcel is located on
the north side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, and is improved with a new dwelling
under construction, and a small shed, as shown on the survey dated Septembe~r 28,
2001, prepared by Young & Young, L.S.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's March 4, 2002 Notice of Disapproval,
citing Section 100-30A.4, in its denial of a building permit for the location of an acoessory
garage in the front yard instead of a required rear yard.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on. February 20,
2003,' which time written and oral.evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony,
documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning
Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant:
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to locate a new 14' x 20'
accessory garage 18.13 feet from the easterly lot line and 34.45 feet from the closest
southerly lot line. The height of the garage is proposed at 15'6" as shown on the
architectural ~ap prepared by Elizabeth Thompson dated 2/15/02.
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials
submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings:
1. Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The property is unique as a flag
type of lot, widening from 100.80 feet (at a point 202.29 feet from Peconic Bay
Boulevard) to 198.80 feet to the north.
2. Due to the unique shape and layout of the applicant's property, placement of the
home in the center of the widest portion of the property, and the fact that there is a
Page 2 - March 12, 2003
Appl. No. 5267 - E. Hinsch
126-10-16 at Laurel
sanitary system located as required by the Suffolk County Health Department, to
construct a detached garage is the only alternative for the applicant to pursue.
3. The variance granted herein is not substantial. The garage will meet or exceed all
setback requirements of the Code for accessory buildings located in a permitted yard.
4. The difficulty is self-created because a possibly different placement of the primary
structure may have eliminated the need for a variance.
5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the proposed additions will have an
adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
6. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to
enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an accessory garage, while preserving and
protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the
balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member
Goehringer, seconded by Chairwoman Tortora, and duly carried, to
GRANT the Variance as applied for, and shown on the plan prepared September
28, 2001, prepared by Young & Young, L.S., SUBJECT TO the condition that the
only utility be electric
This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other
feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses,
setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, and Orlando.
(Member Oliva was absent due to illness, and also absent was Member Horning of
Fishers Island.) This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0).
Lydia A. Toftora, Chairwoman - Approved for Filing
4/ ,~ /03
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
~~~1~ ~}~d"~~~'~.~'r~ S out hold Town Hall
Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road
Gerard P. Goehringer ~ -,t,,t , .~'~- ~ ~'¢"¢/~P~~- ~~ ~ P.O. Box 1179
George Horning ~ ,~ Southold, New York 11971-0959
Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064
"%~ ~¢5F Telephone (631)765-1809
Vincent
Orlando
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS RECeIVeD
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF MARCH 12, 2003
Appl. No. 5192 - DAVID BELL AND RICHARD BUCKHEIT.
Property Location: 1375 Island View Lane, Greenport; Parcel 57-2-14.
SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under
consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II
category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if
the project is implemented as planned.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 15,087 sq. ft. parcel is located on
the south side of Island View Lane, a private road. The property is improved with a one-
story frame dwelling and accessory shed as shown on the survey prepared by John C.
Ehlers, L.S. dated 6-19-2000, revised 2-8-02.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's June 6, 2002 Notice of Disapproval,
citing Section 100-244B, in its denial of a building permit to construct a deck addition at
the rear of the existing dwelling. The reasons stated in the denial are that there will be a
single side yard of less than 10 feet, and minimum total side yards of less than 25 feet.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on February 20,
2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all
testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the
Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant:
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants applied for a 10 x 15 ft. deck with
attached 6 x 8 stairs at the rear of their dwelling with total side yards of 8.5 feet (5. ft. on
the east side and 3.5 ft. on the west side), as shown on the John C. Ehlers survey dated
6-19-00, revised 2-8-02.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Applicant stated at the February 20, 2002, that an "as
built" easterly deck had existed for many years, but was removed in 2000 to bring the
deck into conformance with the code requirements and for the C.O. of record prior to
their purchase. The westerly deck had also existed for many years, and had a 3.5 ft.
setback from the westerly side property line. On July 25, 2001, the Town Trustees
issued a Wetland Permit #5389 for the rear deck, and on May 15, 2002 the NYS
Department of Environmental Conservation issued a permit with conditions for the deck.
About June 4, 2002, the applicant applied for a building permit to construct the easterly
deck, and on June 6, 2002, a Notice of Disapproval was issued by the Building
Page 2- March 12, 2003
Appl. No. 5192 -Bell and Buckheit
57-2-14 at Greenport
Department. On July 10, 2002, applicants filed a variance application. In September
2002, the applicants stated that they completed the easterly deck, "as built," with a 5 ft.
setback from the easterly property line.
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials
submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings:
1. The granting of this variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character
of the neighborhood, or be a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed deck
extension measures 8' x 12', which is not uncommon in this community. Both adjacent
neighbors have attached decks to their houses; the neighbor adjacent directly to the
northeast has a deck less than 10 feet from their side lot line. The applicants' parcel is
approximately 42 feet wide in the area of the principal building, and any addition will
require a variance because of the established nonconforming setbacks. The easterly
rear deck extension will not create any further increase in the non-conformity of the pre-
existing side yard setbacks of this principal dwelling at 3.5 ft. on the west side and 5 ft.
on the east side.
2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant is filling
an empty corner located at the rear of the house, and the new deck construction is a
continuation of an existing rear deck.
3. The requested variance is substantial. There is a 50% reduction for a five ft.
setback on the east side instead of the 10 ft. minimum, and total side yards at
8.5 feet instead of 25 feet. ~
4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood, or district because the applicant proposes
to build an open to the sky, 8' x 12' raised deck, which will be at least twenty-five feet
from the edge of a tidal wetlands area located in the southerly section of this property.
There will be no disturbance to nearby wetlands by this raised, open deck construction,
and the adjacent area is heavily wooded.
5. The difficulty for the applicant is not self-created, but is related to the non-conforming,
narrow 42.50 ft. width of the applicants' property.
6. The relief offered to this applicant is the minimum determined necessary for this
applicant to enjoy the benefit of a deck extension, while at the same time protecting and
preserving the character of the neighborhood, as well as the health, safety, and welfare
of the surrounding community.
Page 3 - March 12, 2003
Appl. No. 5192 -Bell and Buckheit
57-2-14 at Greenport
RESOLUTION/ACTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors, and
applying the balancing test under New York Town Law, motion was offered by
Chairwoman Tortora, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried, to
GRANT the variance as applied for and confirmed by the applicant during the
February 20, 2003 public hearing, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION that the 8' x
12' easterly deck in the rear yard not be enclosed and shall be open to the sky,
and shall not be expanded in any way (other than with side setbacks set forth in
the survey prepared by John C. Ehlers revised 2-8-02).
This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other
feature of the subject property that violates the Zoning Code, other than such uses,
setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, and Orlando.
(Members Oliva and Homing were absent.) This Resolution w.~y~te_¢~-0).
Lyd.ia Jx~dl'ortora, Chairwoman
4/~'/15'3
APPEA;LS BOARD MEMBERS
~,~]~r.~.~~~,-. ,,,,,.,- -., ,-, ,¢- south old Town Hall
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 53095 Main Road
Lydia A. Tort ora ~,~,,4~p~~. ~~ P.O. Box 1179
George Horning ~ ~ Southold, New York 11971-0959
Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064
Vincent Orlando '~'_.~./ ~ *~.~4~ Telephone (631) 765-1809
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD R~C~]VED
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF MARCH 12, 2003
Property Location: 180 Private Road #12 "Windy Point Lane", Southol~';~
Parcel 1000-78-6-3.3 (2 and 3.1 combined).
SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under
consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Typ'e II
category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if
the project is implemented as planned.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's nonconforming 23,522 sq. ft.
parcel is located on the westerly side of Windy Point Lane, Private Road #12, in
Southold. The property is improved with a newly constructed foundation for a dwelling.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's October 1, 2002 Notice of
Disapproval, amended November 20, 2002, citing Section 100-244B for the reason that
the proposed dwelling will be less than 35 feet from the front property line.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held public hearings on this application on January 16
2003 and February 6, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented.
Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the Property, and other
evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant:
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant proposes a setback at 26 feet from
the front property line at its closest point, for a 6'8" porch and 30'8" x 52' dwelling with
20' deck, all as shown on a survey prepared by North Star Surveying, P.C. dated
September 30, 2001, revised 6/3/02.
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials
submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings:
1. Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicant indicated at the
public hearings that many months were spent trying to fit the foundation onto this
substandard lot. The survey initially submitted to the building department allowed a
building permit with a 35 ft. front yard setback. Subsequently, the building department
requested a second survey showing the placement of the foundation, as built. This new
PaGe 2 - March 12, 2003
Appl. No. 5248 - Edward Werthner
78-6-3.3 at Southold
survey information discovered that the as-built foundation is 26 feet from the front lot
line.
2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Since the foundation was poured
in the location described, at 26 feet from the front lot line, the applicant has two choices:
(1) to apply for a 9' setback variance presently before the Board, or (2) cut 9 ft. off of the
existing foundation. The Board has in the past reviewed' similar types of requests for
similar relief. In this situation involving a poured foundation, it becomes extremely
difficult and expensive to do alterations to correct the 9 ft. setback nonconformity.
3. Although the lot is small with 23,522 sq. ft. and it fronts along a private road 50 ft. in
width, the actual right-of-way has actual variable widths of 15' to 18'. This is a significant
factor because there is additional area between the actual road and the applicant's front
property line.
4. The relief requested is self-created because the foundation is in violated of the code
requirement for a minimum 35 ft. front yard setback.
5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the proposed additions will have an
adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The
applicant is required to conform to a landscaping plan, raised due to concerns of the
adjacent landowner of the right-of-way, to landscape the front yard area and that area
between the front property line and the existing road surface.
6. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessarY and adequate to
enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a residence, while preserving and protecting
the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the
balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member
Goehringer, seconded by Chairwoman Tortora, and duly carried to
GRANT the Variance as applied for and shown on the survey prepared by North
Star Surveying, P.C. dated September 30, 2001, revised 6/3/02, SUBJECT TO
'THE CONDITION that the landscaping be provided and maintained by applicant
according to the sketch map submitted to Mrs. Patricia Stegner by letter dated
January 27, 2003, prepared by the applicant's attorney (Patricia C. Moore).
This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other
feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses,
Page 3 - March 12, 2003
Appl. No. 5248 - Edward Werthner
78-6-3.3 at Southold
setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, and Orlando.
(Member Oliva was absent due to illness, and also absent was Member Horning of
Fishers Island.) This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0).
Lydia A. T,9,,'fora, Chairwoman - Approved or Filing
4/,-.¢,/03
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~B[F0t~
ff~.~%x,~~.~ Sou th old Tow nHall
Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman ~~~[~-~ 53095 Main Road
Gerard P. Goehringer ~ ~~'~-~¥ ~,,p~[/~ P.O. Box 1179
George Horning ~ ~ Southold, New York 11971-0959
Ruth D. Oliva x~, ',o,,, _~_ ,~,~-_4x%~'//~'~r ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064
Vincent Orlando ~]~ _,y~ Telephone (631) 765-1809
http://southoldtown.northfork.ne.t
BOARD OF APPEALS [IECE~VED *ff~rm. ox,24~~
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~: ,,4 O ~ m
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MAY ~*
MEETING OF MARCH 12, 2003 ~:¢. ¢/¢ ~2 fix~ ~;~¢
Appl. No. 5260 - SPIROS and IRENE PAPADOPOULOS.
Property Location: 565 Inlet Lane at Manhanset Avenue, Greenport 1000-43-4-34
SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under
consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II
category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if
the project is implemented as planned.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicants' 15,028+~ sq. ft. parcel has 100 ft.
frontage along the west side of Inlet Lane in Greenport. The property is improved with a
two-story frame house and swimming pool as shown on the October 25, 1981 survey
prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's October 21, 2002 Notice of
Disapproval, citing Code Section 100-30A.4, in its denial of an application to locate an
accessory gazebo in a front yard instead of a rear yard.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on January 16,
2003 and February 6, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented.
Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other
evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant:
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: The relief requested is the location of an "as
built" 10 ft. octagonal gazebo structure situated in the front yard approximately 25 feet
from the front property lines instead of a rear yard location.
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials
submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings:
1. Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The gazebo is a small 10 ft. x 10
ft. railed structure does obstruct visibility in the area as built.
2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The property is a nonconforming
15,028+- sq. ft. with two front yards, a side yard and a small rear yard which already
contains a swimming pool.
Page 2 - March 12, 2003
Appl. No. 5260 - S. and I Papadoupolos
1000-43-4-34 at Greenport
3. The variance granted herein is not substantial. The "as built" gazebo is a small 10 ft.
octagonal structure that is not enclosed, exception with a roof and railings.
4. The difficulty has been self-created. The fact that this property is at a road
intersection and therefore has two front yards, with a very diminished rear yard, does not
alter the other pertinent fact that the applicant chose to locate the gazebo in a prominent
front yard location.
5, No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the proposed additions will have an
adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The front
yard placement of this gazebo will not obstruct visibility for vehicles at the intersection of
Manhanset Avenue and Inlet Lane. The property is unremarkable in the respect that it
does not contain any wetlands, nor does it contain the habitat of any rare of endangered
species.
6. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to
enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a gazebo structure, while preserving and
protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the
balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Chairwoman
Tortora, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried, to
GRANT the Variance as applied for, SUBJECT TO the following conditions:
1) The gazebo shall not be enclosed, enlarged, or altered in any way.
2) The gazebo shall not be moved from its present location to any other location
on the property, except to be moved to a rear yard location.
3) The gazebo shall not be replaced after its normal lifespan, without a review
by the Board of Appeals.
4) No internal or external lighting.
This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other
feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses,
Page 3 -March 12, 2003
Appl. No. 5260 - S. and I Papadoupolos
1000-43-4-34 at Greenport
setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action.
Vote of the,Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, and Orlando.
(Member OliVa was absent due to illness, and also absent was Member Horning of
Fishers Island.) This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0).
Lydi, oa A. T/drtora, Chairwoman - Approved for Filing
4/~ /03
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
f~,,.~'~~.~ Southold Town Hall
Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman ~Y~ ~~/~ ?~ 53095 Main Road
Gerard P. Goe hr ing er ~~~ ~ _~._.~.//,~~ ~ P.O. Box 1179
George Homing ~ ~ Southold, New York 11971-0959
Ruth D. Oliva -~ -,tt~ ,, ~,,~- ~ ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064
'~a~ ~ Telephone (631) 765-1809
Vincent
Orlando
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS R~C~I¥~D
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD qs)r_y
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MAY
MEETING OF MARCH 12, 2003 ~. ~
Appl. No. 5239 - JAMES AND KAREN HOEG " ~' $~oi~'~
Property Location: 350 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-115-17-17.10.
SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under
consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II
category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if
the project is implemented as planned.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicants' 49,876 sq. ft. parcel is located on
the west side of Willis Creek Drive in Mattituck and is improved with a two-story frame
dwelling with garage.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's September 26, 2002 Notice of
Disapproval, citing Section 100-33, in its denial of a permit for an in-ground swimming
pool and as built accessory shed in an area other than the required rear yard.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on February 20,
2003, which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony,
documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning
Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant:
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants wish to construct a 20' x 46' in-
ground swimmingpool and an as built 18' x 18' accessory shed behind the existing
dwelling in yard locations, which are near or partly within side yards (see hand-sketched
diagrams marked by applicants on the January 8, 2001 survey prepared by Young &
Young, L.S.). The setbacks of the pool are proposed at 15 feet from the northerly side
line at its closest point and greater than 100 feet from the tie line along the high-water
mark. The side setback of the accessory storage building (shed or barn) is proposed at
6 feet (on an angle to the southerly side line at its closest point).
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials
submitted and personal inspections, thTe~Board makes the following findings:
1. 'Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. By the nature of the appeal and
statements made during the hearing by board members to the applicant, no further side
-yard obstructions or reductions will be allowed on either the north or south side yard.
Page 2 March 12, 2003
Appl. No. 5239 - J. and K. Hoeg
115-17-17.10 at Mattituck
The applicants' request is within reason because there is a 50 ft. non-disturbance buffer
which takes up much of their rear yard area.
2. The benefit sought by the applicants cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The proposed location of the pool
is very close to the applicants' existing garage and stone driveway, which provides easy
access for service and maintenance.
3. The variance granted herein is not substantial because the applicant is utilizing a
reasonable area, near or within a portion of the side yard, and use of this area is forced
due to the non-disturbance buffer shown on the survey dated 118/01.
4. The alleged difficulty has not been self-created because the rear of the home lies
very close to a non-disturbance buffer, which places construction at side yards, near the
existing dwelling.
5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the proposed additions will have an
adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
6. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to
enable the applicants to enjoy the benefit of a swimming pool and storage building, while
preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the
balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member
Goehringer, seconded by Chairwoman Tortora, and duly carried to
GRANT the Variances as applied for and shown on the hand-sketched locations
prepared by applicant marked on the January 8, 2001 survey prepared by Young
& Young.
This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other
feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses,
setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Memb~e~~ Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, and Orlando.
(Member Oliva was absent due to illness, and also absent was Member Horning of
Fishers Island.) This Resolution was duly adopted (.3-0). . /.-,,///~-~., ~
Lydia A. 'Fo.,~ra, Chairwoman - Approved for Filing
' 4/~ /03
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
~~%~ Southold Town Hall
Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman ~ ~[~[~ ?~} 53095 Main Road
Gerard P. Goehringer e~ ~ P.O. Box 1179
George Horning ~ ,~ Southold, New York 11971-0959
Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064
s~:~ _~w Telephone (631) 765-1809
Vincent
Orlando
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION . ,
/~. ~ ,,,e r/,,
MEETING OF MARCH 12, 2003
Appl. No. 5224 - Sprint Spectrum LLP (Orient Congregational Church) ~:~.... t~4~~. ~-" (4¢, /.~~
Property Location: 23045 Main Road, Orient 1000-18-2-22.1 '~'~)¢ ~ ' '
Zone District: R-80 Low Density Residential $o,thol~J Town ¢lerl~
SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under
consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of
the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is
implemented as planned.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The property contains 73,000+- sq. ft. with 174.25 ft. along
the north side of the Main Road, Orient, and is improved with four buildings: (a) church building,
(b) one and one-half stow frame house, and (c) two existing one-stow accessory buildings.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on Februaw 20, 2003, at
which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation,
personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following
facts to be true and relevant:
APPLICANT'S REQUEST/BASIS OF APPLICATION: This is a request for a Special Exception
under Section t00-162A.1 for the proposed installation of a Wireless Telecommunications Facility
use, with modular ceil indoor equipment (antenna) within the existing church building as shown
on the site map prepared by Gary Musciano, RA, PP, dated August 21, 2002. All parking and
screening will be determined by the Southold Town Planning Board as provided under the Zoning
Code site plan regulations.
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY DEFINED: Chapter 100 (Zoning) of the Town of
Southold defines the applicant's proposed use under Section 100-162 as follows:
Any unstaffed facility for the transmission and/or reception of wireless telecommunications
services or other radio transmission and/or receiving service or use usually consisting of a
wireless communication facility array, connection cables, an equipment facility and a
support structure to obtain the necessary elevation. The support structure is either a
building, telecommunication or radio antenna or tower or other approved structure. [Added
11-1.2-1997 by L.L. No. 26-1997; amended 2-2-1999 by L.L. No. 3-1999]
CODE ARTICLE XVI: Section 100-160 of the Zoning Code allows wireless communication
facilities, and particularly telecommunication towers, to be reviewed and approved in keeping with
the town's existing zoning and historic development patterns, including the size and spacing of
structures and open spaces. Furthermore, the standards herein reflect two preferences: that
wireless communication facilities are preferred in industrial areas and that wireless
Page 2 - Marc'h 12, 2003
Appi. No. 5224 Sprint,., p,. ,. ,;'u ,"-'~ , LP
18-2-22.1 at Orient
communication facilities be located on existing buildings and towers rather than on newly
constructed towers. Any wireless communication facility must take into account the aesthetic
aspects of the town, including open vistas, scenic byways and historic districts. In addition, the
following provisions apply:
§ 100-161 . Scope. [Amended 12-8-1998 by L.L. No. 25~1998] The regulations of this article shall
govern and control the erection, enlargement, expansion, alteration, operation, maintenance,
relocation and removal of all wireless communication facilities. The regulations of this article relate to
the location and design of these facilities and shall be in addition to the provisions of the Southold
Building and Zoning Codes and any other federal, state or local laws or Federal Communication
Commission (FCC) regulations pertaining to such facilities. Nothing, herein shall be construed to,
apply to, prohibit, regulate or otherwise affect the erection, maintenance or utilization of antennas or
support structures by those licensed by the Federal C(~mmunications Commission pursuant to
Chapter 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97, to operate amateur radio stations.
§ 100-162. Location of use. No wireless communication facility shall be used, erected or altered in
the Town of Southold when located in an R-80 Residential Zone District, except by (Planning Board)
site plan approval, meeting the following requirements.
(1) Wireless communication facilities on buildings shall require a special exception
approval pursuant to this article. Wireless communication facilities on buildings shall be no
higher than 10 feet above the average height of buildings (excluding signs, fences and
walls) within 300 feet of the proposed facility. The building on which the wireless
commUnication facility is located must be located at least 100 feet from the nearest
property line and 300 feet from any landmark property or district listed by federal, state or
town agencies.
(2) Wireless communication facilities on existing telecommunications towers shall
require asp. ecial exception approval pursuant to this chapter unless otherwise allowed by
the terms of a prior special exception approval.
(3) Wireless communication facilities on telecommunication towers shall require special
exception approval pursuant to this article and shall not project higher than 10 feet above
the average height of buildings (excluding signs, fences and walls) within 300 feet of the
facility or, if there are no buildings within 300 feet, these facilities shall not project higher
than 10 feet above the average tree canopy height in that radius measured from ground
level. If there are no buildings within 300 feet of the proposed facility site, all
telecommunication towers shall be surrounded by dense tree growth to screen views of the
facility in all directions. The base of the tower shall be located at least 100 feet from the
nearest property line and 300 feet from a landmark property or district listed by federal,
state or town agencies.
(4) A wireless communication facility is a permitted use, not requiring site plan approval,
if located on property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by state, federal or town
government, provided that a license or lease authorizing such facility has been approved by
--Ib~a'ge~ Z MarCh 1'~-, 2003
Apph-No 752-24---Spdnt~Spectrum LP
8-2-22.1 at Orient
that government. The height of such facility may be established by the public agency.
(5) A wireless communication facility is a permitted use, not requiring site plan approval,
if located on property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by a special district, provided
that a license or lease authorizing such facility has been approved by the commissioners of
the special district, and provided that it does not exceed the maximum heights specified
above.
Standards. In addition to the standards in Article XXVI of this Code, the Zoning Board of
Appeals finds and determines the following:
(1) The applicant is a public utility.
(2) Construction of the proposed facility or modification of the existing facility is a public
necessity, in that it is required to meet current or expected demands of the telecommunications
provider and to render adequate service to the public.
(3) The applicant has made substantial effort to locate or collocate on existing towers or,
failing that, that the applicant has made substantial effort to locate on federal, state or town land
and facilities.
(4) The facility conforms with applicable FCC regulations.
(5) There are compelling reasons, economic or otherwise, which make it more feasible to
construct the proposed facilities than alternatives.
OTHER CODE CONSIDERATIONS: In addition to considerations under Article XXVl (Special
Exceptions) of Chapter 100, the Zoning Board of Appeals has given consideration to the following
in issuing a special exception approval for a wireless communication facility:
(1) The height of the proposed structure/tower is the minimum necessary to render adequate
service, inside the existing steeple of the church building.
(2) The antenna for the wireless communication facility is situated within a building and is
minimized by its proximity and little or no visibility to residential structures, residential district
boundaries and landmarks designated by town, federal or state agencies.
(3) The wireless communication facility and its antenna(s) are designed and situated to be
compatible with the nature of uses on adjacent and nearby property.
(4) The wireless communication facility has been designed to use the surrounding topography to
minimize its visual impacts.
(5) The wireless communication facility has been deSigned to use the surrounding tree, building
Page 4 - March 12, 2003
Appl.- No. 5224 Sprint Spectrum LP
18-2-22.1 at Orient
or foliage coverage to minimize its visual impacts.
(6) The wireless communication facility maximizes design characteristics to reduce or eliminate
visual impacts or obtrusiveness.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the
balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Goehringer,
seconded by Member Tortora, and duly carried, to
GRANT the Special Exception, as applied for as shown on the site map prepared by Gary
Musciano, RA, PP, dated August 21, 2002
This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of
the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other
features as are expressly addressed in this action.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, and Orlando.
(Absent were Member Oliva and Member Horning.) This Resolution w~s~du.~pted
y ' A. l~t~ra, C airwoman -Approved for Filing
4/ /¢/03
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
~%~,,~r~0~,.~%~ south old Town Hall
Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road
Gerard P. Goehring er ~~N-~'~ ?._4,/l--~. ~ P.O. Box 1179
George Homing ~ .~ Southold, New York 11971-0959
Ruth D. Oliva xx -,t/~ - ..t,~- ~ ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064
'~_a]~ ~ Telephone (631) 765-1809
Vincent
Orlando
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS I~EC~PCED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF MARCH 12, 2003 ~~
Appl. No. 5268 - GERALD LEMMON.
Property Location: 6427 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic; Parcel 86-6-22.
SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under
consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II
category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if
the project is implemented as planned.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 5,000 sq. ft. parcel is located on a
private right-of-way extending 232.36 feet from Indian Neck Road, Peconic. The lot is
improved with a small cottage structure and metal shed as shown on the survey
prePared by Peconic Surveyors February 6, 2003, revised February 19, 2003.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's November 7, 2002 Notice of
Disapproval, citing Section 100-242A, in its denial of a building permit to construct
second-story addition to the existing dwelling will be less than 35 feet from the front lot
line and tess than 35 feet from the rear lot line.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on February 20,
2003, which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony,
documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning
Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant:
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a partial
second-story addition over the existing nonconforming, one-story structure and
alterations with setbacks at 2 ft. from the edge of the right-of-way easement. The
existing setbacks are 3.8 feet at its closest point from the east property line, 4 feet from
the northerly property line, 17 feet from the westerly (front) property line, at its closest
points. (Please see construction diagram prepared by Environment East Inc. dated 6-20-02 for
more details.)
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials
submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings:
1 Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicants do not plan to
change the footprint for the present building which is nonconforming with reference to
front and rear yard setbacks. This is a reasonable request to place a 422.60 sq. ft.
Page 2 - March 12, 2003
Appl. No. 5268 - G. Lemmon
86-6-22 at Peconic
second-story to the existing home. The building is almost centered on the property. The
422.60 sq. ft. addition is for a one bedroom, bath, and office, proposed over the existing
living room and kitchen area as shown on the construction diagrams dated 6-20-02
prepared by Environment East Inc.
2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The lot is 100 ft. by 50 ft., and a
15-ft. right-of-way runs through the property.
3. The variance granted herein is not substantial. Although the present structure is 3.8
feet and 4 ft. from the closest property lines (front and rear Yards), the footprint of the
home is not compromised by the proposed portion of a second-story addition.
4. The difficulty has not been self-created and is related to the small lot size and
limitations for building on a preexisting, nonconforming lot with a nonconforming building.
5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the proposed additions will have an
adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. There are
no wetlands nearby and there will be further encroachment into the nonconforming yard
areas in any direction.
6. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to
enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a partial second-story addition, while
preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying
the balancing test under New York Town Law 267,B~. motion was offered by Member
Goehringer, seconded by Chairwoman Tortora, and diily carried, to
GRANT the Variance as applied for, and shown on the map prepared by Peconic
Surveyors dated February 6, 2003, revised February 19, 2003.
This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other
feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses,
setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, and Orlando.
(Member Oliva was absent due to illness, and also absent was Member Horning of
Fishers Island.) This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0). ..~//
Lydia A. TDCCSra, Chairwoman 4/~ /03
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
xg0..~%'~~~'~,~.'t~ South old Town Hall
Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman ~~~[~,~.~ 53095 Main Road
George Homing ~ ~ Southold, New York 11971-0959
Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064
Vincent Orlando 'e~_a~ ~3; Telephone (631) 765-1809
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATIO~
MEETING OF MARCH 12, 2003
Appl. NO. 5269 - GEORGE BASANI.
Property Location: 1672 Rocky Point Road, East Marion 1000-31-2-10.2
SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under
consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II
category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the
project is implemented as planned.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant'S 40,158 sq. ft. parcel is located on the
south side of Fanning Road in New Suffolk and is improved with a two-story frame house
and detached garage and shed structures as shown on the survey prepared by Peconic
Surveyors, P.C. dated October 24, 1995, amended February 19, 2003.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's November 13, 2002 Notice of
Disapproval denying a permit under Section 100-30A.3 to construct additions/alterations at
less than 50 feet from the front property line
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on February 20,
2003, which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony,
documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board
finds the following facts to be true and relevant:
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a 22 ft. by 24 ft.
addition at the east side of the dwelling at 46 ft. from a right-of-way easement, as shown
on the survey map amended February 19, 2003 prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C.
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials
submitted and personal inspecti°ns, the Board makes the following findings:
1. The granting of this variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of
the neighborhood, or be a detriment to nearby properties, because the applicant seeks to
construct an addition to his principal building in proportion to the existing structure, and as
an improvement to his property without being a detriment to any other properties.
2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method, feasible
for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because the applicant seeks to
build an addition to an existing single family dwelling located on a parcel that has two front
Page 2 - March 12, 2003
Appl. No. 5269- J. Basani
31-2-10.2 at East Marion
yards. The property is bounded on two sides by a semi-improved right of way. The
proposed addition will be +- 46 feet from the right-of-way, instead of the minimum 50 feet
required by Town Code.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because the encroachment toward the right of
way represents an approximate eight percent reduction from the code requirement.
4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood, or district, The applicant will retain a
setback in excess of one hundred fifty feet from the other common boundary with the right-
of-way, and which defines the other front yard on this parcel. The new construction will not
disturb the environment, except for the ground area for the foundation in the immediate
construction area. There are no wetlands on this property, and the property has high
elevations above mean sea level.
5. The difficulty for the applicant is not self-created, and is due to the fact that there are
two front yards.
6. The relief offered to this applicant is the minimum determined necessary for this
applicant to enjoy the benefit of an addition to the dwelling, while at the same time
protecting and preserving the character of the neighborhood, as well as the health, safety,
and welfare of the surrounding community.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the
balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Orlando,
seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried, to
GRANT the Variance as applied for and shown on the plan prepared by Peconic
Surveyors, P.C. amended February 19, 2003.
This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other
_feature of the subject property that may violate the Zonir[g Code, otber._tbarLsu_cb~_ses,
setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, and Orlando.
(Member Otiva was absent due to illness; also absent was Member Horning of Fishers
Island.) This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0).
Lydia A. TC(tora, Chairwoman - Approved for Filing
3/~¢¢¢/03
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman ~ i~~ -'-~ 53095 Main Road
Gerard e. Goehringer ~~~ ~"'~ -~' ¥,,4,/1 IN,.~o~ ~ P.O. Box 1179
George Horning ~ ~ Southold, New York 11971-0959
Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064
'%~ 1~ ~ Telephone (631) 765-1809
Vincent
Orlando
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF MARCH 12, 2003
Property Location: Hedge St., Fishers Island; Parcel 1000-10.-7-'12.
SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under
consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II
category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if
the project is implemented as planned.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's .48-acre parcel is located on the
northwesterly side of Hedge Street.on Fishers island. The property is improved with an
existing dwelling and accessory garage, and has frontage along West Harbor.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's November 7, 2002 Notice of
Disapproval, citing Section 100-239 and 100-244B, in its denial of a building permit to
construct additions and alterations that do not meet the minimum rear yard setback of 50
feet and do not meet the minimum 75 ft. setback from the bulkhead.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on February 20,
2003, which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony,
documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning
Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant:
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a screened
porch extension which will connected to an existing screened porch, a proposed
sunroom, and open deck additions at the northerly side of the existing dwelling. The
new porch addition is proposed at 38.7 feet from the rear lot line and 39 ft. landward of
'the concrete retaining wall. The deck will be truncated at 45.7 ft. from tlse rear lot line.
(For additional details, please see construction drawings dated 6/1.8/02 and site plan
revised2/21/03 prepared by CME/CPK Design.)
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials
submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings:
1. The granting of these variances will not produce an undesirable change in the
character of the neighborhood, or be a detriment to nearby properties, because the pre-
existing, nonconforming rear yard and bulkhead setbacks on this property will not be
changed. The construction will not disturb the rear yard area immediately adjacent to
Page 2 - March 12, 2003
App[ No. 5274 - L. Brown III
10-7-12 at Fishers Island
the bulkhead. There were no objections from neighbors of this applicant, to the
proposed project.
2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The property has pre-
existing, non-conforming rear yard and bulkhead setbacks.
3. The requested variances are not substantial because there will be no reduction in
the pre-existing, nonconforming rear yard and bulkhead setbacks.
4. The proposed variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood, or district. The applicant has revised the
plans for an addition to this single family dwelling to insure that any expansion will not
cause further encroachment into the pre-existing rear yard setback, or the setback from
the concrete bulkhead on West Harbor.
5. The difficulty for the applicant is not self-created, but the difficulty is caused by the
close proximity of this pre-existing, non-conforming structure to a concrete bulkhead
situated on this waterfront property. The dwelling was built to take advantage of views
overlooking West Harbor on Fishers Island.
6. The relief offered to this applicant is the minimum determined necessary for this
applicant to enjoy the benefit of additional new living space, while at the same time
protecting and preserving the character of the neighborhood, as well as the health,
safety, and welfare of the surrounding community.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the
balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member
Goehringer, seconded by Chairwoman Tortora, and duly carried, to
GRANT the Variance as applied for and shown on the site plan revised2/21/03
prepared by CME/CPK Design.
This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other
feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses,
Page 3 ~ March 12, 2003
Appl. No. 5274 - L. Brown III
10-7-12 at Fishers Island
setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, and Orlando.
(Member Oliva was absent due to illness, and also absent was Member Homing of
Fishers Island.) This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0). ,-n ,,/d'~_ . ~
Lydia A. Torto.,r~, Chairwoman - Approved for Filing
4/,J /03
~PPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
~N,~~,~.~ South old Town Hall
Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road
Gerard P. Goehringer x-, -,,,, w ~,,~- ,~ ~°~,,pg,~p~~. ~'~o~ ~ P.O. Box 1179
George Homing ~ ,~ Southold, New York 11971-0959
Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064
'~b~ ~ ~ Telephone (631) 765-1809
Vincent
Orlando
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF MARCH 12, 2003
Appl. No. 5225 - Robert and Celia Swinq
Property Location: 445 Island View Drive, Greenport; 57-2-27.
SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under
consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II
category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the
project is implemented as planned.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: Applicants' property is a 17,912 sq. ft. lot with 75 ft.
frontage along the south side of Island View Lane in Greenport and 80.24 ft. along the
shoreline. The property is improved with a one-story frame house.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Code Section 100-244B, based on the Building Department's
August 22, 2002, amended December 13, 2002, Notice of Disapproval for a proposed
second-stow additions and extensions with principal setbacks at less than ten feet on a
single side yard and less than 25 ft. for total side yards.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on January 16,
2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony,
documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board
finds the following facts to be true and relevant: ~
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Variances are requested under Section 100-
244B for proposed second-stow additions and extensions as described on the Site Plan
dated 5-9-02, revised 12/12/02, and Floor Plans dated 12/12/02 prepared by
Architechnologies, Inc. The setbacks are proposed at: (a) 6.5 feet on the west side yard,
and (b) 17.6 feet for both side yards.
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials
submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings:
1. Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in character of
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicant's house is one of the only
single-stow houses among larger, two-story houses in the neighborhood along Island View
Drive. The existing 6 feet 5 inch side yard setback on the west side will remain the same,
and the east side will have a set back of 11 feet 1 inch.
Page 2 - March 12, 2003
Appl. No. 5225 - R. and C. Swing
57-2-27 at Greenport
2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. This particular lot is narrow and long,
which leaves the side yards with little room for expansion.
3; The requested area variance is minimal with a reduction of 3 feet and 7 inches in the
code requiring a 10-foot side yard set back.
4. The difficulty was self-created, when the applicant purchased the lot knowing its tight
side yard tolerances.
5. There is no evidence that the grant of the variances will have an adverse effect or
impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The
west side set back will not increase its nonconformity and the east side set will also not
increase. The modest variance and the proposed addition will not extend beyond the
existing setbacks. No evidence was submitted to show any physical or environmental
impact on the community.
RESOLUTION/ACTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors, and
applying the balancing test under New York Town Law, motion was offered by Member
Orlando, seconded by Chairwoman Tortora, and duly carried, to
GRANT the variance as applied for.
This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other
feature of the subject property that violates the Zoning Code, other than such uses,
setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. '
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, and Orlando.
(Members Oliva and Horning were absent.) This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0).
_l__y, di~A/~T~ ortr~ra, Ch 'u ..................
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman ~' ~-~.~ 53095 Main Road
Gerard P. Goehr in ger ~ ~'~'~,,. -,o,J _,~ ,.~'~-~ *'~ '*~4'4'///--'~ ~~ ~ P.O. Box 1179
George Horning ~ ,~ Southold, New York 11971-0959
Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064
Vincent Orlando '~al~ .~°; Telephone (631) 765-1809
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBE~TIONS AND DETERMINATION~~~ ~ __~
APpl. No. 5250 - d. and Carol Brady Herzoo.
Propedy Location: 250 Williamsburg Drive, Southold; Parcel 1000-78-5-8.
SEQ~ DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the properly under
consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II
categow of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if
the project is implemented as planned.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 23,407 sq. fl. lot is located on the
west side of Williamsburg Drive in Southold. The lot has frontage along a wood
bulkhead and is improved with a one-sto~ frame house at approximately 35 ft. from the
edge of the right-of-way easement of Williamsburg Drive and 33 fl. from the existing
bulkhead to the west, at its closest points.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building DepaAment's October 15, 2002 Notice of
Disapproval, citing Code Sections 100-244B and 239.4B, in its denial of a permit to
construct additions/alterations to the existing dwelling with: (a) a front setback at less
than 40 feet, (b) proposed rear yard setback at less than 35 feet, and (c) less than 75
feet from the bulkhead at its closest points.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on Januaw 16,
2003, which time written and oral evidence were presented. Ba~ed upon all testimony,
documentation, personal inspection of the propedy, and other evidence, the Zoning
Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant:
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct front and rear
additions to the existing dwelling with setbacks, shown on the 10-10-02 su~ey prepared
by John C. Ehlers, L.S., at 33 ft. to the edge of the front line/stone roadway (21 fl. to the
closest edge of the right-of-way easement), with 20 feet to the rear lot line and 21 feet to
the bulkhead, at its closest points.
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials
submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings:
1. Grant of alternative relief will not produce an undesirable change in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby propedies. The applicant has requested an
addition to the front of his home, and the applicant has title to the entire right-of-way in '
Page 2- March 12, 2003
Appl. No. 5250 - J. and C. Herzog
78-5-8 at Southold
the front. The right-of-way is shown as 50 feet wide, but in fact is much less than that
when viewing the area.
2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The home was not centered on
the lot but skewed toward the waterfront causing significant reduction of present
requirements.
3. Although the relief herein is substantial, there is no evidence in the file that the
construction of the additions with the relief as alternatively granted will adversely impact
the surrounding properties in the neighborhood. There are many homes in the area that
share the same or similar setbacks.
4. The alleged difficulty is self-created. Based upon the 23,407 sq. ft. size of the
property and present placement of the nonconforming setback of the home and its close
proximity to the bulkhead, a self-imposed hardship exists which requires significant relief
from present code requirement for a 75 ft. setback from the existing bulkhead.
5. The Board agreed to reduce the setback of the garage from 25 feet to 23 feet and the
deck from 53 feet to 38 feet in length to gain greater setbacks from the bulkhead.
Therefore, the grant of alternative relief for this variance, increasing the setbacks, would
not have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood.
6. Grant of alternative relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable
the applicant to enjoy the benefit of additions, while preserving and protecting the
character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the
balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member
Goehringer, seconded by Member Orlando, and duly carried, to
GRANT the front yard setback as requested for a 12' x 18' addition at 33 feet,
and 29+- feet for a 6' x 20' deck addition, both measured from the edge of stone
roadway and shown on the John C. Ehlers survey dated 10-10-02; and
DENY the requested rear yard setbacks, and to GRANT the following
ALTERNATE RELIEF:
1: Reduce the garage addition at the north side of the house from 25 ft. in width
to 23 feet in width (26' x 23 ft. total size);
Page 3 -March 12, 2003
Appl. No. 5250 - J. and C. Herzog
78-5-8 at Southold
2. Reduce the length of the deck addition from 53 feet to 38 feet in length;
3. Reduce the width of the deck addition from 12 feet to 10 feet wide, giving a
setback of 23 feet instead of 21 feet, and an elevation from grade of the deck
addition an 18 in. height limitation.
This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other
feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses,
setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, and Orlando.
(Member Oliva was absent due to illness, and also absent was Member Horning of
Fishers Island.) This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0).
Lydia A. T, pC[ora, Chairwoman - Approved for Filing
4/~.~/03